The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old

[orogenicman]

Oh really? In what peer reviewed scientific journals are these creationists publishing their work? More importantly, in what laboratories are they conducting their experiments?

Creationist research on C14 retention in diamonds and coal was published in the Transactions of the American Geophysical Union Issue 84. Ouweneel had his work on developmental anomalies in fruit flies published in Advances in Genetics Issue 16. Frair had his work on turtle systematics and serology published in numerous journals including, Journal of Herpetology, Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Science, and Herpetologica. Scherer's work on basic functional states in the evolution of light-driven cyclic electron transport was published in the Journal of Theoretical Biology issue 104. Lambert’s work on enzymic editing mechanisms and the origin of biological information transfer was published by the Journal of Theoretical Biology Issue 107. Humphreys’ work on comparing experimental results and calculated detector responses for PBFAII thermal source experiments was published in Review of Scientific Instruments Issue 63; his work on Uranium logging with prompt fission neutrons was also published in the International Journal of Applied Radiation and Isotopes Issue 34. Humphrey’s also had work on the 1/γ velocity dependence of nucleon-nucleus optical potentials published in Nuclear Physics Issue A182. Gentry’s work on microscopic coloration halos produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium was published in Science, Nature, and the Journal of Geophysical Research.

I went through all 52 issues of volume 84 of the AGU Journal and found no such paper on C14 retention in diamonds and coal. Please provide not only the volume, but the issue as well for this alleged paper.

The only paper I found in Advances in Genetics authored by Ouweneel was this one: Developmental Genetics of Homoeosis, Willem J. Ouweneel, Volume 18, 1976, Pages 179–248, and it has nothing to do with creationism.

Frair's work (his thesis) was published in 1962, and it too has nothing to do with creationism.

Siegfried Scherer's paper cited above, Volume 104, Issue 2, 21 September 1983, Pages 289–299, concludes that "Based on our present knowledge of molecular biology and biochemistry it is concluded that the evolution of light-driven cyclic electron transport remains an unsolved problem in theoretical biology. In order to clarify the situation, further experimental work in molecular evolution urgently is needed." It makes no mention of creationism, and does not refute evolution (it doesn't even attempt to).

Grant R. Lambert' paper on Enzymic editing mechanisms and the origin of biological information transfer, Volume 107, Issue 3, 7 April 1984, Pages 387–403 concludes that "Based on present knowledge of molecular biology and biochemistry, it is concluded that the evolution of contemporary information transfer systems from primitive systems lacking such editing mechanisms remains an unsolved problem in theoretical biology." of course, like Scherer's paper, the conclusions were made in the mid-1980s. We've advanced by leaps and bounds since then. Moreover, as with Scherer's paper, this one also does not attempt to refute evolution, and certainly makes no mention of creationism.

Humphrey's published work in Review of Scientific Instruments has nothing to do with evolution or creationism. I did not find his work in International Journal of Applied Radiation and Isotopes, probably because it is friggin ancient (pre-1957), but no doubt also has nothing to do with creationism or evolution. Likewise his work on 1/γ velocity dependence of nucleon-nucleus optical potentials is irrelevant to the theory of evolution, makes no mention of the theory, and certainly doesn't offer a creationist argument.

Gentry's work on polonium halos has been widely refuted, and was about as sloppy as it gets.

Again, none of these gentlemen have published works on the (non-) theory of creationism in ANY peer reviewed scientific journal. That they have published scientific works unrelated to the theory of evolution or creationism is utterly irrelevant and is not what I asked for.

Life on Earth is the result of design; much of the diversity we see in life on Earth is the result of natural selection.

Just to be clear, natural selection is not about "intelligent design". There is nothing intelligent about placing an entertainment complex near a sewage treatment plant, nor is there anything intelligent about spina bifida.

Last I was aware they were having trouble calculating a Hubble constant that made much sense or was even very consistent. Secondly, this seems to be assuming the proof by calculating the expansion back to a singularity. What are your reasons for assuming a constant expansion rate and a beginning point of zero? I grew 0.1 inches in the year between my 17th and 18th birthday, using your same assumptions I’d have to be 714 years old at that time since I am 71.5 inches tall right?

WTF???

Creationists are not violating anything in the method by approaching the evidence with a hypothesis in hand. Evolutionists do the exact same thing.

"God did it" is not a hypothesis. It is a dogmatic statement that cannot be falsified by the scientific method.

How do you know it is used to reliably date organic matter up to 50,000 years old? I am not aware of any way to empirically verify this.

That is because you aren't a scientist and have no experience with the method. Thousands of real scientists DO have experience with it, and verify it in hundreds of laboratories worldwide every day.

Again, just like everyone who believes the Earth is billions of years old you’re engaging in posturing. Until you demonstrate otherwise I will assume you simply cannot answer the question.

No, actually, it is you who are engaging in posturing, making a claim (that the Earth is not billions of years old) without providing supporting evidence. We scientists have provided a wide range of evidence of the Earth's ancient origins (the most convincing direct evidence of which is is the Uranium/lead isotopic decay method). You simple choose to willfully ignore it.

That is true only if there are sections of the Ocean’s crust that pre-date the polar reversals that occurred during the year of the flood. Of course the evidence demonstrates that the igneous ocean crust and sediments overlying it postdate the entire continental Paleozoic sedimentary record; so we know this is not the case.

There are millions of square miles of oceanic crust that contains pole reversals that pre-date the alleged timing of the alleged Biblical flood (for which the evidence is utterly null and void). Oh and by the way, there were NO pole reversals in the last 10,000 years. The last geomagnetic pole reversal was about 780,000 years ago. A brief complete reversal, known as the Laschamp event, occurred only 41,000 years ago during the last glacial period. That reversal lasted only about 440 years with the actual change of polarity lasting around 250 years.

Yes, all of the current oceanic crust (which ranges from about 250 million years to the present) post-dates nearly all of the continental Paleozoic sedimentary record, BY DEFINITION. But there is plenty of oceanic crust in existence that pre-dates Paleozoic continental crust. The very basement rock in the Eastern U.S. and much of Canada is over a billion years, and consists of the Grenville province, which is oceanic basalt and metamorphic greenstone that has become part of the North American craton through tectonic accretion.